The BulleTin • Friday, augusT 13, 2021 A5
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Should councilors
or voters fill
council vacancies?
V
oters or Bend city councilors? Who should pick who
fills vacancies on the Bend City Council?
It seems Bend city councilors may
hold on to their power to fill vacan-
cies, rather than turning the decision
over to voters. That’s the direction
taken Wednesday by a subcommit-
tee of the Bend City Council look-
ing at revising council rules. And it
comes just a few years after an ugly
political fight erupted in 2019 when
councilors made an appointment to
fill a vacancy themselves.
That fight began after then-Coun-
cilor Sally Russell won the election
to become Bend’s mayor. Her win
created an opening for her councilor
spot. The council devised a process
to fill it. They accepted applications.
Applicants were checked to ensure
they had the qualifications to serve.
Candidates were interviewed. Coun-
cilors tried to narrow down the
many applicants.
The process was open to the pub-
lic. But there were conversations and
emails exchanged that largely didn’t
become public until after the choice
was made.
It led to charges of backroom
deals — that the fix was in. Coun-
cilor Barb Campbell accused Russell
of betraying the principles she ran
on because Russell voted in 2019
for the eventual choice, Chris Piper.
And that was perhaps some of the
milder criticism.
There was some debate at the time
that the council should wait until
the next election and let voters de-
cide. That’s what we argued should
have happened. The counterargu-
ment was that many important deci-
The process was open to
the public. But there were
conversations and emails
exchanged that largely didn’t
become public until after the
choice was made. It led to
charges of backroom deals —
that the fix was in. Councilor
Barb Campbell accused Mayor
Sally Russell of betraying the
principles she ran on because
Russell voted in 2019 for the
eventual choice, Chris Piper. And
that was perhaps some of the
milder criticism.
sions had to be made quickly by the
council, such as setting budgets and
priorities. It was better to have any
new councilor participate than have
them join later. There was also the
possibility that councilors could be
deadlocked 3-3 on important issues,
if they had to wait a few months for
an election. And, of course, elections
have costs.
Those arguments won. Letting
voters decide lost. And those same
arguments are winning again. Is that
what you want? You can let Bend
city councilors know at council@
bendoregon.gov.
Courts block Bend’s effort
to spend less on tourism
I
f you think Bend should spend
less on promoting tourism, well,
it tried. The courts have stopped
it.
The Oregon Court of Appeals af-
firmed on Wednesday a lower court
decision against the city.
The city of Bend passed an or-
dinance in 2017 to lower the total
percentage of total local transient
lodging tax revenues from 35.4% to
31.2%.
Those taxes are basically the taxes
people pay when they stay in a hotel.
The Oregon Restaurant and Lodg-
ing Association and two local hotel
owners challenged the ordinance in
court.
The city has argued the plaintiffs
didn’t face real or probable injury.
The courts disagreed.
The city also argued that the over-
all percentage allocated to tourism
remained above 30% and that was
The city of Bend passed an
ordinance in 2017 to lower the
total percentage of total local
transient lodging tax revenues
from 35.4% to 31.2%. Those taxes
are basically the taxes people
pay when they stay in a hotel.
sufficient to meet the law. The courts
disagreed, saying there was also an
unambiguous prohibition from de-
creasing the amount for tourism
promotion on or after July 2, 2003.
It may seem like Bend doesn’t
need tourism promotion. But if the
city of Bend wants to make a change
like this, it would seem to need a
change in state law.
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor
Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
Flaws in Bend’s housing plans
B
BY TED BAYER
renna Visser’s July 30 article
about Bend’s housing dilemma
highlights key elements of the
crisis but fails to call out real flaws in
the city’s planned effort to create af-
fordable middle housing.
City staff and elected officials have
focused solely on diminished hous-
ing supply as the source of the crisis.
In recent presenta-
tions, a staff mem-
ber has suggested
that systemic rac-
ism, NIMBYism
and resistance to
change are primary
causes of the re-
Bayer
duced affordable
housing supply and
further that De-
schutes County —with a population
in 2016 of 190,000 residents — “un-
derproduced 150,000 homes during
2010-16.” A typo? If not, drop a zero,
and you are likely closer to the reality.
Similarly, the $650,000 median home
price utilized in those presentations
applies to single-family residences;
median prices and rents for middle
housing were not provided.
This approach, with its failure to
examine relevant facts and an us-
versus-them hostility toward any who
question the city’s proposed manner
of implementing House Bill 2001,
disturbs many residents who are con-
cerned about the shortage of afford-
able housing for those working here.
It also ignores the impact of a major
cause of the crisis: the nature of Bend’s
current housing demand.
GUEST COLUMN
Bend’s population increased by
35% between 2010 and 2020 and has
grown more in 2021. With these new
residents, housing demand has sky-
rocketed. A significant part of this
increase recently has been from re-
tirees who, after cashing out market
gains in their homes in major urban
areas, have moved here because of
Bend’s livability and relative afford-
ability. Since COVID-19 started in
early 2020, Bend also has become a
Zoom town, again because of its liva-
bility and perceived lower cost. That
surge has brought many new residents
who, while perhaps not so cash-rich
as retirees, continue to work remotely
in the cities from which they migrated
at much higher salaries than those of-
fered here.
Finally, the same qualities that have
drawn retirees and Zoomies continue
to attract tourists. As a result, short-
term rental property, although now
more regulated, has drawn cash inves-
tors simply seeking a return on their
money.
These three buyer groups are the
primary cause of a median price for a
single-family residence over $625,000.
These demand drivers also have a
common element: Few of the buyers
and no short-term renters are em-
ployed in Deschutes County. Conse-
quently, while our population con-
tinues to swell, “help wanted” and
“now hiring” signs proliferate; and
St. Charles hospital, the only hospi-
tal system in Central Oregon, faces
a severe staffing shortage. It is these
missing workers for whom the city
ostensibly desires to provide afford-
able housing. Yet, as the economist
cited in Ms. Visser’s article confirms,
simply increasing supply will not re-
sult in a decline in median housing
costs but “might help” affordability.
He does not indicate how increased
supply will help, and neither does the
city. Instead, staff and elected officials
just think it will — even when they
are aware of other measures within
their control that definitely will affect
affordability.
Ms. Visser details some of those
solutions at the end of her article;
others are set forth in state regula-
tions. Council says it is considering
a number of them, but since afford-
able housing is so critically needed,
why some or all of them are not be-
ing implemented along with the HB
2001 code amendments is puzzling.
Demonizing those who challenge not
your objectives but rather your meth-
ods and trivializing their concerns
over forced street parking may be
easier than doing a thorough analy-
sis and then implementing measures
that actually work. Retirees, Zoomies,
tourists and others will keep buying
and renting housing here — so long
as Bend remains livable. Our lead-
ers have tools that could enable them
to create affordable middle housing
for those who work here without di-
minishing the character of our town.
Given the stakes, Bend residents and
workers are wondering, why not im-
plement them right now?
e
Ted Bayer lives in Bend.
Letters policy
Guest columns
How to submit
We welcome your letters. Letters should
be limited to one issue, contain no more
than 250 words and include the writer’s
phone number and address for verifica-
tion. We edit letters for brevity, grammar,
taste and legal reasons. We reject poetry,
personal attacks, form letters, letters sub-
mitted elsewhere and those appropriate
for other sections of The Bulletin. Writers
are limited to one letter or guest column
every 30 days.
Your submissions should be between
550 and 650 words and must include
the writer’s phone number and address
for verification. We edit submissions for
brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons.
We reject those submitted elsewhere. Lo-
cally submitted columns alternate with
national columnists and commentaries.
Writers are limited to one letter or guest
column every 30 days.
Please address your submission to either
My Nickel’s Worth or Guest Column and
mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin. Email
submissions are preferred.
Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Write: My Nickel’s Worth/Guest Column
P.O. Box 6020
Bend, OR 97708
Fax:
541-385-5804
What should be done about homelessness?
BY RON SMITH
H
omelessness should not be
considered normal or an ac-
ceptable life choice. It is nei-
ther of these.
It is a visible symptom that some-
thing has gone seriously wrong, and it
should trigger a strong response from
a robust social safety net designed to
set things right again. Think of this
safety net as scaffolding with many
interlocking parts offering many lev-
els of support activated by individ-
ual needs. Here’s how such a system
might operate.
Stage 1. As soon as a tent appears
on public property, social services
would spring into action. A poten-
tially homeless person would be vis-
ited by a social worker who will assess
the situation. If it is clear that there
are no means of immediately obtain-
ing conventional accommodations,
the new client would be escorted to a
temporary intake shelter (along with
their secured possessions). This shel-
ter might be along the lines of a su-
pervised military-style barracks with
basic accommodations and amenities
(communal restrooms and cafeterias).
Stage 2. Once safely housed and fed,
a longer-term social worker would be
assigned and intake screening would
start immediately. First, identification
would be attempted and kin folk con-
tacted, if appropriate. Next, a physi-
cal exam would be performed and a
mental health screening would be un-
dertaken. Depending on the outcome
of these screenings, the appropriate
health services would be engaged. If
the client has been in the military, VA
resources would be activated, if appli-
cable.
After a personal history has been
pieced together and a review of per-
GUEST COLUMN
sonal goals completed, the client
would transition from the temporary
shelter to the next setting that is con-
sidered most appropriate. For some,
this may be a clinical setting, but for
most, this transition would be to a su-
pervised dorm-like pod with social
support.
Each pod would be small, per-
haps accommodating a dozen folks
(including partners and children as
appropriate). The pods would be dis-
tributed throughout the city neigh-
borhoods to promote normalization.
Stage 3. If the client decides to re-
main in the local community going
forward, the social worker and client
would work together to set goals and
a plan for achieving independence as
soon as possible. Job placement would
Clients can opt out of this support system at any time, but if they do, they
must leave the local area. Is this an intrusive process? Yes and for good
reason. Restoring independence for a homeless person is no easy or
painless task. But as a civilized society, we have an obligation to support
those experiencing significant life issues.
be a point of emphasis. Most jobs
would be in essential services with
training, transportation and initial
wage subsidies provided as needed.
Once stable employment is
achieved, the client would transition
to a small, supervised mainstream
(possibly subsidized) apartment.
As more independence is demon-
strated, scaffolding would be reduced
until full community integration is
achieved. But regular social worker
contacts would be permanent.
Clients can opt out of this support
system at any time, but if they do, they
must leave the local area. Is this an
intrusive process? Yes and for good
reason. Restoring independence for
a homeless person is no easy or pain-
less task. But as a civilized society, we
have an obligation to support those
experiencing significant life issues.
Let’s move on from hand wringing
to action. In my next installment, I’ll
explain how to fund and administer
these kinds of scaffolded support sys-
tems.
e
Ron Smith lives in Bend.